_________________ 

_________________ 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 

Opinion in Chambers 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 12A48 

MARYLAND v. ALONZO JAY KING, JR. 

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY 

[July 30, 2012] 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice. 

Maryland’s DNA Collection Act, Md. Pub. Saf. Code

Ann. §2–501 et seq. (Lexis 2011), authorizes law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples from individuals

charged with but not yet convicted of certain crimes, mainly

violent crimes and first-degree burglary. In 2009, police 

arrested Alonzo Jay King, Jr., for first-degree assault.

When personnel at the booking facility collected his DNA, 

they found it matched DNA evidence from a rape committed in 2003. Relying on the match, the State charged and 

successfully convicted King of, among other things, firstdegree rape. A divided Maryland Court of Appeals overturned King’s conviction, holding the collection of his DNA

violated the Fourth Amendment because his expectation of 

privacy outweighed the State’s interests. 425 Md. 550, 42 

A. 3d 549 (2012). Maryland now applies for a stay of that 

judgment pending this Court’s disposition of its petition 

for a writ of certiorari. 

To warrant that relief, Maryland must demonstrate (1) 

“a reasonable probability” that this Court will grant certiorari, (2) “a fair prospect” that the Court will then reverse

the decision below, and (3) “a likelihood that irreparable 

harm [will] result from the denial of a stay.” Conkright v. 
 

2 MARYLAND v. KING 

Opinion in Chambers 

Frommert, 556 U. S. 1401, 1402 (2009) (GINSBURG, J., in 

chambers) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To begin, there is a reasonable probability this Court 

will grant certiorari. Maryland’s decision conflicts with 

decisions of the U. S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and 

Ninth Circuits as well as the Virginia Supreme Court, 

which have upheld statutes similar to Maryland’s DNA 

Collection Act. See United States v. Mitchell, 652 F. 3d 

387 (CA3 2011), cert. denied, 566 U. S. ___ (2012); Haskell 

v. Harris, 669 F. 3d 1049 (CA9 2012), reh’g en banc granted, 

2012 WL 3038593 (July 25, 2012); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 469, 650 S. E. 2d 702 (2007), cert.

denied, 553 U. S. 1054 (2008); see also Mario W. v. Kaipio, 

2012 WL 2401343 (Ariz. 2012) (holding that seizure of a

juvenile’s buccal cells does not violate the Fourth Amendment but that extracting a DNA profile before the juvenile

is convicted does).

The split implicates an important feature of day-to-day

law enforcement practice in approximately half the States

and the Federal Government. Reply to Memorandum in 

Opposition 3; see 114 Stat. 2728, as amended, 42 U. S. C.

§14135a(a)(1)(A) (authorizing the Attorney General to

“collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested, 

facing charges, or convicted”). Indeed, the decision below 

has direct effects beyond Maryland: Because the DNA

samples Maryland collects may otherwise be eligible for 

the FBI’s national DNA database, the decision renders the 

database less effective for other States and the Federal 

Government. These factors make it reasonably probable 

that the Court will grant certiorari to resolve the split on

the question presented. In addition, given the considered

analysis of courts on the other side of the split, there is a

fair prospect that this Court will reverse the decision 

below. 

Finally, the decision below subjects Maryland to ongoing 

irreparable harm. “[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a 
 

 

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 

Opinion in Chambers 

court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” 

New Motor Vehicle Bd. of Cal. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 

U. S. 1345, 1351 (1977) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). 

Here there is, in addition, an ongoing and concrete harm 

to Maryland’s law enforcement and public safety interests. 

According to Maryland, from 2009—the year Maryland

began collecting samples from arrestees—to 2011, “matches

from arrestee swabs [from Maryland] have resulted

in 58 criminal prosecutions.” Application 16. Collecting

DNA from individuals arrested for violent felonies provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and 

thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the

general population. Crimes for which DNA evidence is 

implicated tend to be serious, and serious crimes cause 

serious injuries. That Maryland may not employ a dulyenacted statute to help prevent these injuries constitutes

irreparable harm.

King responds that Maryland’s eight-week delay in

applying for a stay undermines its allegation of irreparable harm. In addition, he points out that of the 10,666

samples Maryland seized last year, only 4,327 of them

were eligible for entry into the federal database and only 

19 led to an arrest (of which fewer than half led to a conviction). Memorandum in Opposition 11. These are sound 

points. Nonetheless, in the absence of a stay, Maryland 

would be disabled from employing a valuable law enforcement tool for several months—a tool used widely throughout the country and one that has been upheld by two 

Courts of Appeals and another state high court.

Accordingly, the judgment and mandate below are 

hereby stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a 

writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In 

the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, 

the stay shall terminate upon the issuance of the mandate 
 

4 MARYLAND v. KING 

Opinion in Chambers 

of this Court. 

It is so ordered.